Donate time, as in debugging and testing and submitting bug reports - which I've done
Donate code - which I haven't done publicly because I am too afraid my code would inspire ridicule
Evangelize - which I've done
Thank the contributors - which I've done
Preaching or evangelizing about an open source project does indeed support it. Word of mouth is what has taken many itty bitty projects and gained them the momentum to make them hugely successful projects.
Ok, look...I defended your original post as I am pretty much of the same opinion. But there are many words in english (as I'm sure there are in most languages) that have more than one meaning depending on context.
Free can very legitimately mean zero cost or gratis. There's no reason Opera (and other companies) shouldn't be able to say, we're giving away FREE foobars...meaning gratis, at no cost.
Similarly, there's no reason RMS should have to use another word because free software can mean exactly what RMS intends: software that has been set free...or that was created that way to begin with...free as in freedom.
And...giving up your soul?! A little hyperbole maybe? It doesn't serve to make your point. It serves to make you look extreme...which I doubt you are.
Geesh, I was just going to do some moderating; but, I have to respond.
There are several replies to this post with the "wah! typical/. wah! why are you so critical wah! they're a commercial company wah! get over yourself... WAH! WAH! WAH!"
Look, nowhere in this post did he bitch about Opera. He said he desires to keep using as much "really free" software as possible... and simply, "thanks but no thanks" and frankly never did he say Opera sucks or FSCK Opera! He never even suggested they should open source their product.
Listen, I loved the Opera browser. I'm sure it's still wonderful. But it is precisely this reason that I no longer use it.
I bought and paid for Opera. I even asked my wife for a new license for Christmas a few years back...and she got it for me. I was a huge Opera fanboy. Whenever some story about browsers came up on/. I'd be one of the first saying, "Hey, you should use Opera. It's sweet!" and such.
But, at some point I realized that as cool as Opera is, and as much as I think the company is a fine company, it's still not software that is terribly concerned with freedom. And there are two perfectly acceptable (if not arguably better in some ways) browsers that are. Opera wants to give gratis licenses to schools, good on them. But any school that takes that gift should look at it for what it is and weigh carefully their options. Firefox is a damn fine browser on par with Opera in most ways that the majority of their users would need...and it's not just gratis, it's free. If Opera goes under, what then?
To me, Opera and Mozilla/Firefox...it's like six of one, half-a-dozen of another. And functionality (for my concern) being equal, I choose to use Mozilla/Firefox now. Because they're free, not because they're gratis. And I want to support this.
I find it amazing somebody points out that he makes the same choice on slashdot (of all places) and not only gets flack about it but gets modded down for it.
A local root exploit is a serious issue even on single user machines. Now, you could argue that Linux users are more savvy and would not run unverified code...but I say that's only guessing and we have seen repeatedly how a little social engineering can get people to run unknown content.
I keep seeing posts here about somebody setting their grandma up to run $DISTRO but nobody will admit then that said grandma might be easily duped into clicking that link in that e-mail to get the latest cookie recipe (or some other nonsense) and woops! there goes a local exploit and now her box is Pwn3d!
It sounds like you're saying this isn't such a big disaster because there aren't that many Linux users...and that strikes me as a ridiculous point of view.
Slashdot doesn't have editors. They have clickers. They read a submission and make a hasty decision: click approve or click reject.
This isn't a news source. It's an aggregator and it's often wrong. It's been a long time since/. clickers clicked the links submitters provide and actually read them. Heck, sometimes articles are approved with broken links. The clicker who clicked approve didn't even click the links to see if they 404-ed or not.
You need to brush up on your comprehension skills. The article is misleading because it states very clearly that SecurityFocus has released a security warning with three problems that affect Mozilla on all platforms. Criminetly, it's the first freaking sentence of the submission. Everything that follows is in reference to that. But the funny thing is, the SecurityFocus release has nothing to do with any platform other than Gentoo. It's not even a general release for Linux, but specific to a distro. Now, I assume it applies to other Linux distros as well. But the SecurityFocus release very clearly states these issues are already fixed in the latest versions.
The link to secunia says this is still a potential issue for Mozilla on Windows. OK. That's one issue.
The link to isec.pl (even as the submitter noted in the not-misleading part) does not effect current versions on any platform.
The link to ptraced.net mentions problems with older versions on Debian only (again, I'll assume it effects all Linux distros) but not "on all platforms" as the submitter suggested. It also gives no indication of whether this is fixed in the current releases...maybe not, but given the Gentoo release says the latest versions fix this on Gentoo Linux, odds are good it's fixed for all Linux versions. And, remember, there's no evidence this issue EVER EXISTED on Windows.
So, what we have is one issue effecting the current version of Mozilla (and perhaps Firefox) on Windows. Yet, the submitter says "three problems...on all platforms" and then ends his misleading submission with "Let's hope that these will be fixed soon!"
That, dear sir, is fairly misleading in my book. I don't attribute it to malice. Hanlon's Razor applies.
Well, I figured it's a given that/. "editors" (more like "fake news moderators") don't check links. This is the first time I can recall a submitter didn't even check his own links.
But then, I'm more of the opinion now that I think about it that said submitter meant to do that.
The article is misleading. It first states that Security Focus has issued a release of three vulnerabilities effecting all platforms. But in reality, the linked SecurityFocus release only applies to Gentoo and not one of the issues is still an issue with the current releases on that platform. In fact, not one of these issues is an actual issue in any of the latest versions on any platform except possibly the first issue on Windows only.
So, instead of being misleading, the submitter could have said, "SecurityFocus released a warning about old versions of Mozilla, Thunderbird, and Firefox for Linux users...but since most Linux users are probably on the current versions, since they've been out several months now, it hardly effects them. Seperately, one of these issues is apparently still an issue on the Windows platform...switch to Linux now."
I find I enjoy activities a lot more now that I can see them through to completion without beeping and flashing alerts interrupting me at arbitrary moments.
Translation: I find I enjoy/. a lot more now that I can RTFA through to completion without beeping and flashing alerts interrupting me at arbitrary moments.
Linus Torvalds: I don't actually follow other operating systems much. I don't compete - I just worry about making Linux better than itself, not others.
I don't quote Linus because I worship him; rather, I quote him here because this point he makes is accurate about what Linux is about. Certain people want to see this as a competition. Fine, that's on them. They can write a response if they want to. But a lot of folks are not trying to win a marketing battle with Microsoft, myself included.
I don't care what Microsoft has to say about Linux. I know where they are coming from.
I don't use Linux to stick it to Microsoft. I made a choice based on what I see as practical driving factors that make Linux better. Among those factors are price, functionality, reliability, and control.
So long as Linux keeps getting better than itself, I'm a happy camper.
Oh, God, you can't call it Liberal software. The the Republican congress-critters in the US will definitely pass a bunch of bogus laws to benefit Microsoft et. al. and their Conservative software.
Software Libre makes sense to me but it'll never happen. I also kind of like Liberated Software (if you love something, set it free...) or even better: Liberating Software (it will set you free).
Fatigue is only the beginning. How about creating a physical model in which I'm really able to run around and do what I want?
Why is it I can sit in most FPS games and fire my big ass gun at a wall until the cows come home but never blow a hole through it? (...unlesss it's one the game designers specifically put there for that purpose)
I'd like to see a FPS in which *all* walls act like walls, *all* doors act like doors, and if it's visible on screen, it's an object I can act upon. I don't just want to see bullet holes mapped onto the texture of something I shoot, I want to be able to blow a freaking hole through a wall, tie a rope to something in the room, and climb down (or jump to my death if I'm done playing). I can't stand it when there's some door I can't get through until I get the red key or some crap like that. I've got enough explosives to bring down a skyscraper and I can't even dent this door? Riiiight... It's just BS to keep you following the script.
I think the whole FPS genre could get a lot more people back into it if the environment were a more realistic physical model. That's why the whole thing jumped when it went from 2D to 3D, there was additional freedom to move about and do things the game designers never necessarily intended you to do.
I imagine games will eventually get to this point, where walls, doors, floors, tables, ceilings, windows, and, well, everything has qualities that make up how strong they are, how much they weigh, how far I can throw them, how much weight they can support, how big a blast it takes to destroy them, etc. Just overall a more realistic phyiscal model instead of "wow! what awesome lighting effects!"
But for now, I think a lot of people are sick of following the game script. I know I am.
Yes, but the problem with that is the push toward a completeley closed DRM system. One requiring a digital path to the speakers, which will need to have their own DRM-enabled decoders and DACs to do the final conversion to analog audio we can hear inside the speaker itself.
When that happens, mic-ing the speaker is the only way...barring opening the speakers and doing a little soldering and whatnot. But that's a tactic I'm sure there will be attempts to stop as well.
The point of five days is probably related to the video rental market. They want consumers to start thinking of watching movies online the same as video rentals.
It has been long standing practice for places like Blockbuster to give you a five-day rental. Although I here Blockbuster is changing that policy soon...
Slashdot Mirror
But, wait...don't we all know this already? Been there, done that. Here's something new to bitch about:
Standardization of acronyms: according to The Acronym Finder, PDA has 70 meanings. Discuss...
I thought we were an autonomous collective.
Right.
...imagine a beowulf cluster of
Ahh, nevermind...
- Donate money - which I've done
- Donate time, as in debugging and testing and submitting bug reports - which I've done
- Donate code - which I haven't done publicly because I am too afraid my code would inspire ridicule
- Evangelize - which I've done
- Thank the contributors - which I've done
Preaching or evangelizing about an open source project does indeed support it. Word of mouth is what has taken many itty bitty projects and gained them the momentum to make them hugely successful projects.Ok, look...I defended your original post as I am pretty much of the same opinion. But there are many words in english (as I'm sure there are in most languages) that have more than one meaning depending on context.
Free can very legitimately mean zero cost or gratis. There's no reason Opera (and other companies) shouldn't be able to say, we're giving away FREE foobars...meaning gratis, at no cost.
Similarly, there's no reason RMS should have to use another word because free software can mean exactly what RMS intends: software that has been set free...or that was created that way to begin with...free as in freedom.
And...giving up your soul?! A little hyperbole maybe? It doesn't serve to make your point. It serves to make you look extreme...which I doubt you are.
Geesh, I was just going to do some moderating; but, I have to respond.
/. wah! why are you so critical wah! they're a commercial company wah! get over yourself ... WAH! WAH! WAH!"
/. I'd be one of the first saying, "Hey, you should use Opera. It's sweet!" and such.
There are several replies to this post with the "wah! typical
Look, nowhere in this post did he bitch about Opera. He said he desires to keep using as much "really free" software as possible... and simply, "thanks but no thanks" and frankly never did he say Opera sucks or FSCK Opera! He never even suggested they should open source their product.
Listen, I loved the Opera browser. I'm sure it's still wonderful. But it is precisely this reason that I no longer use it.
I bought and paid for Opera. I even asked my wife for a new license for Christmas a few years back...and she got it for me. I was a huge Opera fanboy. Whenever some story about browsers came up on
But, at some point I realized that as cool as Opera is, and as much as I think the company is a fine company, it's still not software that is terribly concerned with freedom. And there are two perfectly acceptable (if not arguably better in some ways) browsers that are. Opera wants to give gratis licenses to schools, good on them. But any school that takes that gift should look at it for what it is and weigh carefully their options. Firefox is a damn fine browser on par with Opera in most ways that the majority of their users would need...and it's not just gratis, it's free. If Opera goes under, what then?
To me, Opera and Mozilla/Firefox...it's like six of one, half-a-dozen of another. And functionality (for my concern) being equal, I choose to use Mozilla/Firefox now. Because they're free, not because they're gratis. And I want to support this.
I find it amazing somebody points out that he makes the same choice on slashdot (of all places) and not only gets flack about it but gets modded down for it.
Anomaly...does not compute.
Warning!!!
Do NOT DOWNLOAD BRITNEYSPEARSNUDE.WMV!!! It is not really a video of her stripping. It is a virus!!!
BTW, HURRY! WAREZ LIST ENDS SOON!!!
I guess they just hoped they could scare most people into shopping.
Which, come to think of it, is probably their ultimate goal.
Ad-Aware doesn't detect all those files from OpenOffice.org, Firefox, Mozilla, etc...
A local root exploit is a serious issue even on single user machines. Now, you could argue that Linux users are more savvy and would not run unverified code...but I say that's only guessing and we have seen repeatedly how a little social engineering can get people to run unknown content.
I keep seeing posts here about somebody setting their grandma up to run $DISTRO but nobody will admit then that said grandma might be easily duped into clicking that link in that e-mail to get the latest cookie recipe (or some other nonsense) and woops! there goes a local exploit and now her box is Pwn3d!
It sounds like you're saying this isn't such a big disaster because there aren't that many Linux users...and that strikes me as a ridiculous point of view.
Slashdot doesn't have editors. They have clickers. They read a submission and make a hasty decision: click approve or click reject.
/. clickers clicked the links submitters provide and actually read them. Heck, sometimes articles are approved with broken links. The clicker who clicked approve didn't even click the links to see if they 404-ed or not.
This isn't a news source. It's an aggregator and it's often wrong. It's been a long time since
You need to brush up on your comprehension skills. The article is misleading because it states very clearly that SecurityFocus has released a security warning with three problems that affect Mozilla on all platforms. Criminetly, it's the first freaking sentence of the submission. Everything that follows is in reference to that. But the funny thing is, the SecurityFocus release has nothing to do with any platform other than Gentoo. It's not even a general release for Linux, but specific to a distro. Now, I assume it applies to other Linux distros as well. But the SecurityFocus release very clearly states these issues are already fixed in the latest versions.
The link to secunia says this is still a potential issue for Mozilla on Windows. OK. That's one issue.
The link to isec.pl (even as the submitter noted in the not-misleading part) does not effect current versions on any platform.
The link to ptraced.net mentions problems with older versions on Debian only (again, I'll assume it effects all Linux distros) but not "on all platforms" as the submitter suggested. It also gives no indication of whether this is fixed in the current releases...maybe not, but given the Gentoo release says the latest versions fix this on Gentoo Linux, odds are good it's fixed for all Linux versions. And, remember, there's no evidence this issue EVER EXISTED on Windows.
So, what we have is one issue effecting the current version of Mozilla (and perhaps Firefox) on Windows. Yet, the submitter says "three problems...on all platforms" and then ends his misleading submission with "Let's hope that these will be fixed soon!"
That, dear sir, is fairly misleading in my book. I don't attribute it to malice. Hanlon's Razor applies.
Well, I figured it's a given that /. "editors" (more like "fake news moderators") don't check links. This is the first time I can recall a submitter didn't even check his own links.
But then, I'm more of the opinion now that I think about it that said submitter meant to do that.
The article is misleading. It first states that Security Focus has issued a release of three vulnerabilities effecting all platforms. But in reality, the linked SecurityFocus release only applies to Gentoo and not one of the issues is still an issue with the current releases on that platform. In fact, not one of these issues is an actual issue in any of the latest versions on any platform except possibly the first issue on Windows only.
So, instead of being misleading, the submitter could have said, "SecurityFocus released a warning about old versions of Mozilla, Thunderbird, and Firefox for Linux users...but since most Linux users are probably on the current versions, since they've been out several months now, it hardly effects them. Seperately, one of these issues is apparently still an issue on the Windows platform...switch to Linux now."
I don't quote Linus because I worship him; rather, I quote him here because this point he makes is accurate about what Linux is about. Certain people want to see this as a competition. Fine, that's on them. They can write a response if they want to. But a lot of folks are not trying to win a marketing battle with Microsoft, myself included.
I don't care what Microsoft has to say about Linux. I know where they are coming from.
I don't use Linux to stick it to Microsoft. I made a choice based on what I see as practical driving factors that make Linux better. Among those factors are price, functionality, reliability, and control.
So long as Linux keeps getting better than itself, I'm a happy camper.
Oh, God, you can't call it Liberal software. The the Republican congress-critters in the US will definitely pass a bunch of bogus laws to benefit Microsoft et. al. and their Conservative software.
Software Libre makes sense to me but it'll never happen. I also kind of like Liberated Software (if you love something, set it free...) or even better: Liberating Software (it will set you free).
Fatigue is only the beginning. How about creating a physical model in which I'm really able to run around and do what I want?
Why is it I can sit in most FPS games and fire my big ass gun at a wall until the cows come home but never blow a hole through it? (...unlesss it's one the game designers specifically put there for that purpose)
I'd like to see a FPS in which *all* walls act like walls, *all* doors act like doors, and if it's visible on screen, it's an object I can act upon. I don't just want to see bullet holes mapped onto the texture of something I shoot, I want to be able to blow a freaking hole through a wall, tie a rope to something in the room, and climb down (or jump to my death if I'm done playing). I can't stand it when there's some door I can't get through until I get the red key or some crap like that. I've got enough explosives to bring down a skyscraper and I can't even dent this door? Riiiight... It's just BS to keep you following the script.
I think the whole FPS genre could get a lot more people back into it if the environment were a more realistic physical model. That's why the whole thing jumped when it went from 2D to 3D, there was additional freedom to move about and do things the game designers never necessarily intended you to do.
I imagine games will eventually get to this point, where walls, doors, floors, tables, ceilings, windows, and, well, everything has qualities that make up how strong they are, how much they weigh, how far I can throw them, how much weight they can support, how big a blast it takes to destroy them, etc. Just overall a more realistic phyiscal model instead of "wow! what awesome lighting effects!"
But for now, I think a lot of people are sick of following the game script. I know I am.
Yes, but the problem with that is the push toward a completeley closed DRM system. One requiring a digital path to the speakers, which will need to have their own DRM-enabled decoders and DACs to do the final conversion to analog audio we can hear inside the speaker itself.
When that happens, mic-ing the speaker is the only way...barring opening the speakers and doing a little soldering and whatnot. But that's a tactic I'm sure there will be attempts to stop as well.
The point of five days is probably related to the video rental market. They want consumers to start thinking of watching movies online the same as video rentals.
It has been long standing practice for places like Blockbuster to give you a five-day rental. Although I here Blockbuster is changing that policy soon...